Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant Scott Brockelbank was convicted of aggravated criminal trespass and assault. The Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's judgment and sentence, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to disprove Appellant's competing harms defense because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the State disproved at least one of the elements of the defense; and (2) the sentencing court acted within its discretion by permitting the State to introduce information related to Appellant's nonpublic juvenile adjudication during the sentencing proceedings to the limited extent reasonably necessary to respond to and explain information introduced by Appellant related to the same adjudication. View "State v. Brockelbank" on Justia Law

After Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband, the district court learned that the couple had not obtained a legally enforceable marriage license. Therefore, the court converted the complaint for divorce into a petition to determine parental rights and responsibilities. The court subsequently (1) awarded Wife primary residential care of the children and final decision-making authority in the event the parties disagreed about significant decisions affecting the children and (2) ordered Husband to make weekly child support payments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) awarding Wife primary residence of the three minor children as that determination was not based upon clearly erroneous findings, (2) allocating final decision-making authority to Wife where the court found that Husband had a history of abuse and that Wife received substantial support in caring for the children, and (3) imputing Husband's earning capacity for the purpose of establishing the child support order partially due to Husband's limited efforts to find employment. View "Sheikh v. Haji" on Justia Law

Hannaford Brothers applied for a site plan review permit to construct a grocery store and drive-through pharmacy. The town's Planning Board voted to grant the permit. The Biziers and other concerned citizens directly appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Board. The Biziers appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record amply supported the Board's findings that the project was harmonious and in good scale with the natural terrain and surrounding development of the area in accordance with the town's zoning ordinance; and (2) the Board did not err in failing to conclude that Hannaford's plan to modify the dimensions of a landowner's property would create an illegal back lot, and the dimensions of the landowner's resulting lot did not bar the issuance of the site plan review permit to Hannaford. View "Bizier v. Town of Turner" on Justia Law

The State filed an antitrust enforcement action against four MaineHealth entities based on the proposed acquisition by MaineHealth of two major cardiology practices. The matter was transferred to the business and consumer docket. Central Maine Medical Center (CMMC) moved to intervene in the proceeding, arguing that it had an interest in the case as a principal competitor in cardiovascular surgery of one of MaineHealth's hospitals. The lower court denied CMMC's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of CMMC's motion, holding (1) because CMMC made no evidentiary showing of bad faith, collusion, or other malfeasance on the part of the government, and did not demonstrate that the disposition of the antitrust action would impair its ability to protect its interests through independent litigation, intervention of right was properly denied; and (2) the lower court did not err in denying permissive intervention after determining that joining the private cause of action to the State's enforcement claim would unduly burden the proceedings and supplying an alternative method for CMMC to participate in the action by providing oral comments and written submissions to the court. View "State v. MaineHealth" on Justia Law

Appellees in McCormick v. LaChance (McCormick I) brought a motion for reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of a portion of the Supreme Court's opinion in McCormick I. In McCormick I, Appellant appealed the judgment of the superior court granting Appellees summary judgment in an action regarding location of an easement. The Supreme Court affirmed. In the instant action, Appellees contended that because the only issue presented for decision in McCormick I was whether the prior owner of Appellant's land could, by deed referencing a plan, relocate an easement on the face of the earth, the Court should not have addressed an issue of whether actions that Appellant had taken on the face of the earth could have accomplished a relocation of a previously existing easement benefiting Appellees. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and revised its opinion, concluding that in addressing Appellant's attempts to relocate the easement by his actions on the ground after receipt of the deed, the Court misapprehended the issues and addressed matters not presented to the trial court in the summary judgment proceeding and, thus, not properly preserved and presented to the Court for consideration on appeal. View "McCormick v. LaChance" on Justia Law

Wife initiated a divorce from Husband. After a trial and after applying the parties' premarital agreement to the evidence presented to divide the parties' real and personal property, the court ordered Husband to pay Wife $145,000. The court then ordered Wife to pay Husband $300,000 to achieve an equitable distribution. Wife appealed. Wife subsequently moved the district court to enforce the preliminary injunction, claiming Husband removed her from his health insurance policy in violation of the injunction. The trial court denied Wife's motion. Wife appealed this judgment and consolidated her appeals. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court's action with respect to Wife's motion for a preliminary injunction as the parties' premarital agreement unequivocally barred the awarding of spousal support, and therefore, neither spouse could be required to provide the other with health insurance; and (2) affirmed most of the divorce judgment but vacated the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding Husband $300,000 to create an equitable division of the marital estate because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that $300,000 of the assets awarded to Wife were marital property. Remanded. View "Laqualia v. Laqualia" on Justia Law

Deutsche Bank, the holder of a note and mortgage on the Pelletiers' home, filed a complaint for foreclosure against the Pelletiers. The Pelletiers filed a motion to dismiss and asserted affirmative defenses through which they sought rescission as a remedy. The district court entered summary judgment for the Pelletiers, ruling that, because the bank offered no evidence to oppose the facts offered by the Pelletiers in support of rescission, and because the evidence offered by the Pelletiers established that they had timely notified the bank of their rescission right, they were entitled to judgment on their demand for rescission as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court but remanded for further proceedings to determine how the rescission should be effectuated. View "Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pelletier" on Justia Law

The district court entered a jeopardy order based on a finding that jeopardy had been established by Mother's inadequate care and supervision of Child. During the pendency of Mother's appeal, Child turned eighteen years old. Although the appeal was moot, the Supreme Court reached the merits of the appeal because of potential collateral consequences. The Court then (1) concluded that the evidence did not establish parental unfitness to support a jeopardy order and, (2) while the jeopardy order itself was moot, vacated the court's order and the findings that supported the order and remanded with direction to vacate the jeopardy order and dismiss the child protection proceedings against Child. View "In re Ciara H." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two individuals, purchased a parcel of land bisected by a railroad track. Maine Central Railroad Company denied Plaintiffs' request to install utility lines across the railroad track for residential access. Plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action, requesting that the court declare a perpetual right-of-way appurtenant to their property over the property of Maine Central. After the case was remanded, the superior court found that an implied quasi-easement existed over the Railroad's land but concluded that (1) the quasi-easement's use was limited to its historical use as a farm crossing, and (2) therefore, the scope of the easement did not include the right to install utility services or use as residential access. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly determined the scope of Plaintiffs' implied quasi-easement by limiting it to its originally-intended purposes. View "Connolly v. Maine Central R.R. Co." on Justia Law

The Belangers rented a trailer from John Mulholland. The Belangers informed Mulholland about problems with their running water and toilet, but no repairs were made. When the Belangers were eventually evicted from their trailer, they had lived there without running water for nine months and without a functioning toilet for five months. The Belangers sued Mulholland for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The trial court ruled in favor of the Belangers and awarded the Belangers five months' rent. The Belangers appealed, contending that they were entitled to damages for an additional four-month period when they lacked running water but still had a functioning toilet. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as modified, holding that the Belangers were entitled to damages for an additional four months because, by itself, the lack of running water in the Belangers' trailer for four months rendered the trailer unfit for human habitation. View "Belanger v. Mulholland" on Justia Law